Bundle Up, It's Global Warming

Look. Arguing the man made global warming fraud and describing in detail how it is fraudulent with someone who is blinded by years of carefully
crafted psychological manipulation is like trying to tell a three year-old that there are really no monsters in the closet.

The global warming lie, like the boogeymen in the closet, can't be disputed with fact, science, logic and empirical data. You have to pat them on the
head, offer them cookies and milk, and move past it to more adult things.

Hopefully, children will get over these childish fantasies when they mature.

Folks, the answer to climate change is found 93 million miles away. C02 has been as high as 250,000 ppm in the past. It is currently about 380ppm.
Most GW fanatics say it should be below 350. Plant growth stops at 200 and below. Its happened in the past. The Maunder solar minimum devestated
most of the population in the middle ages and later the Dalton solar minimum hit from 1780 to 1830.

Astrophysicists say 1000 ppm is optimal for plant growth.

Another thing to consider is that in the cycle of climate changes, a warming period has been historically good for flora and fauna while cooling
trends have been near extinction level events.

The earth remains in a period of deglaciation (I hope) and technically, an ice age.

The minute warming detected (although questionable) ceased in 1998 and we have just emerged from a deep solar minimum between cycles 23 and 24. If
(and I hope not) the minimum from 24 to 25 is as long, the planet could be shortly in another chill down.

What can we do to stop it? Nothing, but at this point with the possibility of climate induced famine looming in the future, why are we using every
crackpot theory coming and going to raise energy costs and curtail supplies? The answer could only be the INTENTIONAL neglect of population's
welfare.

Originally posted by astrocreep
Folks, the answer to climate change is found 93 million miles away. C02 has been as high as 250,000 ppm in the past. It is currently about 380ppm.
Most GW fanatics say it should be below 350. Plant growth stops at 200 and below. Its happened in the past. The Maunder solar minimum devestated
most of the population in the middle ages and later the Dalton solar minimum hit from 1780 to 1830.

Astrophysicists say 1000 ppm is optimal for plant growth.

Another thing to consider is that in the cycle of climate changes, a warming period has been historically good for flora and fauna while cooling
trends have been near extinction level events.

The earth remains in a period of deglaciation (I hope) and technically, an ice age.

The minute warming detected (although questionable) ceased in 1998 and we have just emerged from a deep solar minimum between cycles 23 and 24. If
(and I hope not) the minimum from 24 to 25 is as long, the planet could be shortly in another chill down.

What can we do to stop it? Nothing, but at this point with the possibility of climate induced famine looming in the future, why are we using every
crackpot theory coming and going to raise energy costs and curtail supplies? The answer could only be the INTENTIONAL neglect of population's
welfare.

Its in the history books! Google search Maunder , Dalton Minimum. Or don't. I don't care. It won't change a thing. What does change things is
raising energy costs for no better reason than some sort of fanciful whim. It may be an inconvenience to modernized nations but causes millions to
perish in third world countries.

Just saying that I'm wrong on every count doesn't make me wrong. The climatory record of C02 levels is well documented as are the effects of solar
cycles on global temparture.

You all are hanging the blame for something your not even sure exists on a gas that merely makes up about .04% of the atmosphere and of that small
percentage, humans contribute about 3%. The first 20 ppm greatly affect and help regulate temperature but the affect decreases as the levels increase.

An example came during the Maunder minimum when temperature levels reached dangerously low levels. Tree growth slowed so much, the rings of some
species ended up so close together that the Stradovarious violen crafted from them is worth millions today. The close grain of the slow growing wood
made for an unimitatable sound.

The bad thing is, most of the population of Europe froze/starved to death.

This'll throw a spanner in the works and also backs up my previous post on the last page where I linked reports from scientists detailing how dust
particles affect global warming.

The study's key conclusion was to show that the ratio of small soil dust particles (clay), which cool the atmosphere, to large soil dust particles
(silt), which yield an indirect heating effect, may be much higher than previous estimated. This is a critical finding because it shows that the
Earth's climate may be much more sensitive to solar radiation than previous models have indicated, which in turn casts doubt on anthropogenic warming
theory -- the idea that human carbon dioxide emissions bear the primary warming influence on the climate over the last several decades.

So the bottom line with this finding is that all the computer modelling up to now hasnt been accurate because they havent considered the cooling
effect of small dust particles or the warming effect of the larger dust particles.

I'd love to see the last 100 year climate tempriture records rewritten taking these factors into account and see what the results really say.

Thats just it. We have been fed material from a computer model and not had any clarification that it was from a model and not actual measurments.
For decades, they have quoted inaccurate model predictions as if they were actual observed data and conveniently dropped the "according to the global
warming model" qualifyer.

Since the formulation of the hypothesis, it has been shown that the predictions were inaccurate on the order of about 300%. Had this been any other
theory, it would have been thrown out. Just so happens, money and a lot of it rides on it. I just wish those who are pushing the environmental
policies which skyrocket energy costs would realize the affects on impoverished countries.

Its in the history books! Google search Maunder , Dalton Minimum. Or don't. I don't care. It won't change a thing. What does change things is
raising energy costs for no better reason than some sort of fanciful whim. It may be an inconvenience to modernized nations but causes millions to
perish in third world countries.

Just saying that I'm wrong on every count doesn't make me wrong. The climatory record of C02 levels is well documented as are the effects of solar
cycles on global temparture.

You all are hanging the blame for something your not even sure exists on a gas that merely makes up about .04% of the atmosphere and of that small
percentage, humans contribute about 3%. The first 20 ppm greatly affect and help regulate temperature but the affect decreases as the levels increase.

An example came during the Maunder minimum when temperature levels reached dangerously low levels. Tree growth slowed so much, the rings of some
species ended up so close together that the Stradovarious violen crafted from them is worth millions today. The close grain of the slow growing wood
made for an unimitatable sound.

The bad thing is, most of the population of Europe froze/starved to death.

Annnd you somehow believe that the world body of Climatology (which has DISCOVERED and STUDIES these sorts of climatic shifts) somehow forgot to
factor in these "minimums" and the larger effects of the Milkanovitch cycles...?? No... because once again THEY DISCOVERED AND STUDY THESE THINGS
FOR A LIVING. So when they tell you that something is very very off and cannot be explained by normal/natural cycles, you should probably listen to
them instead of listening to paid-off "scientists" with no credibility in Climatology and/or industry-backed/right-wing blogs which have no deep
respect for truth/science anyway.

Global warming is far beyond a fanciful whim. Do you seriously realize what you're typing? Everything you say is a lie, a myth... yet you keep
repeating the same propaganda as if it's true. You know that ignorant people will read "oh yeah global warmin's just a fanciful whim they don't
even know fer shur!!11" and start to believe it right? Something tells me you were one of those people who believed it because A) It sounded nice to
you, and B) It allows you to take yourself and your society massively off the hook for its poor behavior. While I can understand the psychology of
such false beliefs... I must urge you NOT to try to convince yourself or others that it somehow reflects the truth.

First of all- the sun is NOT to blame for the current global warming, at the VERY MOST it can be blamed for about one-fifth of that. No other natural
cycle can explain the past century's rise in temps. The best and most GLARINGLY OBVIOUS link (which has been proven in so many countless ways beyond
a shadow of a doubt) is human emissions of greenhouse gases which have increased atmospheric PPM from 280 to 350 in just a few decades... that is an
INCREDIBLE LEAP. And keep in mind... CO2 might only be a small fraction of the atmosphere, but that means NOTHING in terms of global warming.
Long-wave radiation doesn't bounce back towards the CO2 and then calculate CO2 as a percentage of the atmosphere and then warm it accordingly, it
reacts to CO2 (and other GHGs) as a NET AMOUNT. So if we're talking NET AMOUNTS of atmospheric CO2 we're talking GIGATONS of CO2 which is absolutely
enough to explain the Earth's natural greenhouse effect AND (via the CO2 increases) the subsequent human-induced warming. If ALL the CO2 were removed
from our atmosphere, the planet's temperature would decrease by 60 degrees Fahrenheit, HARDLY a minor effect doncha think? CO2 is CENTRAL to the
greenhouse forcing effect of our planet, in fact it is responsible for 80% of the FORCING effect. Water vapor contributes 35-65% of the TOTAL
greenhouse effect which includes forcing and feedback factors, but without CO2, there would BE NO WATER VAPOR FEEDBACK. CO2 is the first mover as far
as the greenhouse effect is concerned, other than the sun. And like I said, the sun is NOT responsible for it. Solar irradiance has DECREASED over the
past couple decades, as have sunspots (drastically actually) while temps continue to rise in concordance with CO2 levels. You can stick your head in
the sands of denial all you want, but the science is quite clear and undeniable to those educated that AGW is real and poses a serious threat to the
biosphere.

Kind've funny how you talk at irrelevant length about the Maunder minimum... the Maunder minimum was a 30-year decrease in sunspots that caused
globally lower temps... and like I mentioned before, we were just steeped in around a decade of ridiculously low sunspots... but the past decade was
the HOTTEST DECADE ON RECORD, with the top ten hottest years on record ALL being within the past 12 years.

Also, to tell someone who says that the sun has an effect upon temperatures on earth that they are wrong on every count goes way on past "drinking
the coolaid" as they say. I hope you know that.

Yet another old old stale denier tactic of setting up false strawmen.

NOBODY IS SAYING that the sun has no effect on Earth's temps. The sun is CENTRAL to Earth's climate, but when we're talking about the CURRENT
global warming then the sun is NOT to blame, PERIOD. Can we move on now?

I am 50 years old and have learned through my training here on Earth that if they say look left, I instinctively look right. They said we were running
out of fossil fuel, I went out and bought a second vehicle.
They said man-made Global Warming, I said get out your mittens.

Well I consider that a mistake because in my almost 50 years I've learned that sometimes they tell us the exact truth, but in a way that confuses
instead of informs. In other words they hide the truth in plain site.

Funny thing is when I was young it wasn't governments warning of climate change due to pollution, it was people like you and me, the government has
only recently jumped on this because they now have no choice but to control the information we receive.

The government is not black and white, it's very sly and knows human psychology.

You are doing what the government really wants, to ignore what we are doing to our planet so the capitalist economy can keep raping it and destroying
it's eco system.

I am not part of any problem for I don't think pollution has ANYTHING to do with Global Warming.

Originally posted by ANOK
...
You are doing what the government really wants, to ignore what we are doing to our planet so the capitalist economy can keep raping it and destroying
it's eco system.

is it about ecosystems or the climate now? i mean pollution and habitat loss are real and very pressing issues (as is soil depletion), but they appear
to be constantly ignored in favor of AGW.

now riddle me this, how could any of the supposed mitigating strategies like biofuels, windmills and some solar prototypes, which are with
precious few exceptions centered around electricity generation and vehicle fuels, help in any way?

their net contribution is typically negative, so it's a PR campaign driven by expensive subsidies, see

why do so many people support these goals, which they profess not to understand?

why should anyone have to explain not backing this cult when in fact the PRO camp has a lot to explain?

normally, people learn from mistakes and revise their policies when serious obstacles are encountered. Let's take a look at pharmaceuticals, if they
have serious side effects, they are (supposed to be) quickly withdrawn, which is why you can no longer buy Thalidomide (Contergan ) over the counter.
when dealing in AGW, famine isn't considered serious enough to reconsider even the slightest bit of policy.

To answer your questions: No. I do not think the Global Warming Theory figures in solar cycles, in fact those espousing it have gone out of their way
to deflect any discussion concerning its impact.

Second, the last decade was not even close to being the warmest on record. The Vikings once farmed Greenland before the Maunder minimum. Third, even
pro global warming grant collectors are having a tough time explaining why there has been no warming since 1998. Once again, you confuse reality with
model projections. Thats been the problem all along. Quoting model predictions as reality is a misnomer. Since the 1970's we have had the equipment
to make real-time observations so lets use those, shall we.

And lastly, the Maunder minimum was not a 30 year absense of sunspots. It was deep minimums on the end of two cycles which had lasting and
reverberating effects. You didn't mention the more recent Dalton Minimum which last approx 1780 to 1830 and had global climate affects.

You never addressed my point that civilizations have historically thrived during warming trends and suffered during the opposite other than to give me
a blanket "wrong" on all my points but I assure you, that is the case. We know the famine in Europe which brought about the Plague happened during
a cooling period (Maunder) and also the Vikings, who were diriving about 70% of their food from agri/horticulture in Greenland 25% from the Sea and 5%
from shipments via their homeland. During their demise, this reversed and as the sea ice closed in, their fish left and their route to home was
closed off. They withered.

It happens that easy. Folks, we all take for granted that come what may, those trucks will still deliver to your local grocery but that is dead
wrong. If (and its an if I do hope I'm dead wrong about) if the growing seasons in the nation's bread basket shorten to the point that crops are
damaged before they are ready to be harvested, I guarantee those trucks won't run.

I know that many people on this board have grandious ideas of survival on their own but I tell you all here and now, its a hell of a lot better to
just dream about it than to have to live it. Its tough to grow every bite you eat and even tougher to keep what you grow during a famine.

Our current solar minimum's effects have already become apparent. The minimum allows more cosmic rays to evaporate moisture, increasing cloud cover
which reflects sunlight. On the front end, more precip, more cloudy days. On the back end, a deep freeze.

The good thing about this is that we won't have to wait 100,000 years to see if the ocean rises an inch. If this is the case, it'll shortly become
apparent and we won't worry much about what happens on some internet message board. If it doesn't and we return to a warming trend, you all can go
back to hitting the panic button and I'll gleefully enjoy being wrong albeit well fed.

Wow! you really seem to be a true believer in the so-called science behind this fraud - most of those 'facts' you cited are anything but! - and your
reasoning seems to consist of complete unscientific gibberish!

fact is there has been no 'warming for 15 yrs, as in the "we can't account for the lack of warming and it's a travesty" email

The whole theoretical basis for the (misnamed) 'greenhouse effect' - ie thought to be responsible for 33C of extra warming at the earths surface - is
itself chock full of assumptions and estimates and is not a thing that can be directly measured. (ie Boltzman const applicability at low temps, earth
albedo etc)

Fact is most of this effect is due to water vapour -95% -

Man made CO2 contributions to this effect amount to 0.117% - or approximately one thousanth part!

The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions
this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy.

Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about
0.035%. This is much less than the natural variability of Earth's climate system! www.geocraft.com...

"Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and co-chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Working Group III on Mitigation of
Climate Change (say that twice), told the Neue Zurcher Zeitung last week: "The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate
conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War." After all, redistributing global wealth is no small matter.
Edenhofer let the environmental cat out of the bag when he said "climate policy is redistributing the world's wealth" and that "it's a big
mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization."

Heir Ednhofer has become of interest in my research as of late and I assure you, he is a real winner.

To answer your questions: No. I do not think the Global Warming Theory figures in solar cycles, in fact those espousing it have gone out of their way
to deflect any discussion concerning its impact.

Second, the last decade was not even close to being the warmest on record. The Vikings once farmed Greenland before the Maunder minimum. Third, even
pro global warming grant collectors are having a tough time explaining why there has been no warming since 1998. Once again, you confuse reality with
model projections. Thats been the problem all along. Quoting model predictions as reality is a misnomer. Since the 1970's we have had the equipment
to make real-time observations so lets use those, shall we.

And lastly, the Maunder minimum was not a 30 year absense of sunspots. It was deep minimums on the end of two cycles which had lasting and
reverberating effects. You didn't mention the more recent Dalton Minimum which last approx 1780 to 1830 and had global climate affects.

You never addressed my point that civilizations have historically thrived during warming trends and suffered during the opposite other than to give me
a blanket "wrong" on all my points but I assure you, that is the case. We know the famine in Europe which brought about the Plague happened during
a cooling period (Maunder) and also the Vikings, who were diriving about 70% of their food from agri/horticulture in Greenland 25% from the Sea and 5%
from shipments via their homeland. During their demise, this reversed and as the sea ice closed in, their fish left and their route to home was
closed off. They withered.

It happens that easy. Folks, we all take for granted that come what may, those trucks will still deliver to your local grocery but that is dead
wrong. If (and its an if I do hope I'm dead wrong about) if the growing seasons in the nation's bread basket shorten to the point that crops are
damaged before they are ready to be harvested, I guarantee those trucks won't run.

I know that many people on this board have grandious ideas of survival on their own but I tell you all here and now, its a hell of a lot better to
just dream about it than to have to live it. Its tough to grow every bite you eat and even tougher to keep what you grow during a famine.

Our current solar minimum's effects have already become apparent. The minimum allows more cosmic rays to evaporate moisture, increasing cloud cover
which reflects sunlight. On the front end, more precip, more cloudy days. On the back end, a deep freeze.

The good thing about this is that we won't have to wait 100,000 years to see if the ocean rises an inch. If this is the case, it'll shortly become
apparent and we won't worry much about what happens on some internet message board. If it doesn't and we return to a warming trend, you all can go
back to hitting the panic button and I'll gleefully enjoy being wrong albeit well fed.

Your arguments are consistently either factually wrong, twisted in their logic, or irrelevant...

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.